> Abdul Fatteh Responses to Quantum theory?

[Qatada]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Selam aleykum

Well it depends on your perspective. Like with the analogy of the glass. Everything is made out of energy, the matter (glass) that is destructed consists out of energy, the force that destroys it is (kinetic) energy, the sound it makes is energy. So it's a bit odd to ask whether or not "this energy" causes allot of destruction. Which energy are you refering to? For example, if the sun would burn up; the biggest problem is not the state of entropy, but rather the lack of light and heat. A universe were all the stars have gone out would be very dark and cold. Another, perhaps even better analogy: you can burn up a piece of wood for warmth, but you can't un-burn the ashes. So in other words the problem of entropy is not that systems with high entropy are destructive, but rather simply that we have no use for them.

As for the relation to the infinite history. Those who claim that the universe has always existed, would have to explain why we aren't already in a state where all entropy is maximised.
here's that short story btw:
The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

can you explain what u mean by 'entropy is maximised'? :)


And do you mean that when there is no useful energy, you mean that the sun and other stars won't give off heat and light etc due to them running out of energy [do they work on limited fuel]? Which will in effect cause everything in the universe to die out?

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Originally Posted by Qatada

can you explain what u mean by 'entropy is maximised'? :)

So, you understand that energy can change from one state to another, but that sometimes this is a one way street, that cannot be reversed right? Well when this one-way-street process occurs, we say that the entropy become higher. Why? Well that's just what entropy means, it's an arbitrary term that merely refers to how much the energy can still change to other states. A maximised entropy, means that all energy is in a state where it can no longer be turned back into another state.
(Oh btw, do note that this only refers to spontaneous processes. Some of these processes can be reversed by manipulation, however then you have to add more external energy in it, so in the end of the line this doesn't solve the problem but merely shifts it.)

And do you mean that when there is no useful energy, you mean that the sun and other stars won't give off heat and light etc due to them running out of energy [do they work on limited fuel]? Which will in effect cause everything in the universe to die out?

Yes, the stars work on fuel (sort of). The process that occurs in stars that causes them to give of heat and radiation and light is atomfusion (not to be confused with atomfission, the proces that we use in nuclear power plants) . Atomfusion is a process where two Hydrogen-atoms are combined to form one Helium-atom. Given enough time, the sun would eventually reach a point where it doesn't have enough Hydrogen-atoms left to continue this process. Once this happens to all the stars, the universe just as you put it "dies out". Of course this is strictly hypothetical. The day of reckoning would probably come long before this would ever happen. ^_^

[Qatada]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Outside the dimension of time. It could very plausibly be the case that past present and future were created at once. And that only to us, since we have a subjective point of view, it appears as if past comes "before" future.

Wheter or not it can actually be "seen" or "percieved" is not the issue. The issue is, that from a non-subjective point of view, one doesn't necesairly precede the other.

Is this based on real scientific fact or a purely philosophical issue? do you only say that the future isn't here because we recognise time [i.e. past as something which preceded the present], or do you literally mean that scientifically the future is occurring right now also but we live in another timeframe [of the past in comparison to that future]?





also, someone said on another site;

The Quantum Mechanism can explain how particles develop from materialistic nothing.

Is there any truth to this? And what does it mean?

[Abdul-Fattah]

Originally Posted by Qatada

Is this based on real scientific fact or a purely philosophical issue? do you only say that the future isn't here because we recognise time [i.e. past as something which preceded the present], or do you literally mean that scientifically the future is occurring right now also but we live in another timeframe [of the past in comparison to that future]?

Well yes and no. The problem with explaining this issue is that there exist no words that properly explain it. You explanation is very close, in saying that the future happens right now. But it is not 100% right, because the words "right now" indicate a subjective view, time-based view. But yeah from a point of view outside time, present past and future would all appear to happen simultaneous.

also, someone said on another site;
Is there any truth to this? And what does it mean?

I dunno, it could be that this person refers to an anomaly, with matter antimatter. But as I explained, that is not "out of nothing". As far as I know (with my limited understanding of quantum physics) there exists no explanation in quantum physics that explains creation out of nothing. Perhaps you could ask this person the name of the process or the name of the concept or some source?

[Qatada]

can you explain the arguments for and against entropy in a multiverse.


jazak Allah khayr

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aelykum
Like I said there's really nothing to argue about. entropy has no significant impact on the multi verse theory. It are two completely un-related theories.

[Qatada]

asalam alaikum


this is what the brother said akhi;

Originally Posted by Hasan

Its possible that particles CAN be born out of materialistic nothing(meaning a space where no matter is present, there could be energy etc, but not matter). The point was they claimed it IS possible in the case of Quantum mechanics that a particle can come out spontaneously, i.e. without any cause.

Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth - View Single Post - Qur'an and science ... confusions

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Its possible that particles CAN be born out of materialistic nothing(meaning a space where no matter is present, there could be energy etc, but not matter).

Yes this is possible, although the term "nothing" is inappropriate/confusing. Like I explained in the matter-antimatter issue, even empty space, consists of empty positive boxes and negative boxes
with raw particles. So it's not like anything new is created, but rather existing things are manipulated in form.

The point was they claimed it IS possible in the case of Quantum mechanics that a particle can come out spontaneously, i.e. without any cause.

We can never know that there truly isn't any cause. There might be some phenomena in quantum physics of which we have found no cause. But it is still possible, and even probably, that there is a cause which we simply haven't found yet.

[Qatada]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Selam aelykum
Like I said there's really nothing to argue about. entropy has no significant impact on the multi verse theory. It are two completely un-related theories.

can you just explain or clarify that.. how are they not related? does every universe have its own entropy levels?

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

can you just explain or clarify that.. how are they not related? does every universe have its own entropy levels?

Perhaps you could clarify why you think there's a connection between those two? Entropy is merely a term we have come up with to measure the state energy is in. Wheter that energy is in classical universe or in a multi-verse really doesn't make any difference to that.